Plan to Capture Last 5 Condors in Wild Scuttled by Judge

A federal judge on Monday forbade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from resuming its controversial plan to capture the last five California condors remaining in the wild.

The order, handed down in Washington, immediately renewed the volatile debate over the best way to save the largest bird in North America from extinction. There are 26 condors known to exist. Besides the five living in the wild, 21 are held by the Los Angeles Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal Park.

The National Audubon Society, which brought suit to block the capture of the remaining vultures, hailed the decision and said it would enable scientists and environmentalists to “hedge their bets” by leaving some condors in the wild while others are kept in protective custody at the two zoos, where they are being used in a captive breeding program intended to save the species.

Spokesmen at both zoos bitterly assailed the court’s ruling, however, and said the society had by its suit threatened the survival of the species.

Until last December, the service planned to capture three of the wild birds and release three other condors from captivity at the Los Angeles Zoo. Then, later in December, the service suddenly reversed itself and called for the capture of all condors remaining in the wild, saying that one of the birds not scheduled to be captured was extremely ill.

In addition, the service said, another pair appeared to be mating and only one of them was targeted for capture. Finally, the service charged that the Los Angeles Zoo had “mishandled” some of the birds due to be released and made them too tame to return to the wild. The zoo denied the charge.

In his ruling, Judge Barrington D. Parker took special note of the fact that before its “abrupt about-face,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had long known of those factors and had nonetheless argued for keeping some of the condors in the wild. The judge said the service had offered “insufficient analysis” to back up such a major policy reversal.

The service’s decision in December threw the environmental movement and the Condor Recovery Program into an upheaval and prompted the society’s suit. The judge agreed with the society’s contention that the agency had not offered a “reasoned analysis” of its change of position, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, nor had it studied alternatives to the capture, as called for in the Environmental Protection Act.

He noted that the latter act requires a federal agency to prepare an environmental impact statement before taking any action that would have a “significant” effect on the environment. The agency did not offer such a report or offer convincing reasons why it should not do so, he said.

A Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman said the agency is considering an appeal.

When the service authorized state officials to capture the remaining condors last December, there were six in the wild. Two weeks ago, one of the six, a female--one-half of the last known breeding pair in the wild--died of starvation at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, where it was taken Jan. 3 after being captured 100 miles from Los Angeles. Authorities said the bird could not eat because its digestive tract had been paralyzed from lead poisoning that resulted from swallowing shotgun pellets in animal carcasses. Jeff Jouett, a spokesman for the San Diego park, charged Monday that the court’s decision will endanger the remaining wild birds.

“I think the veterinarians and the condor keepers and the staff who watched the agonizing death by starvation and lead poisoning over 20 days of the last condor they brought in from the wild . . . are totally appalled by the action. They dread having to watch that happen five more times. Birds remaining in the wild are in imminent danger of death by starvation and lead poisoning.”

Michael Wallace, coordinator of the captive breeding and release program at the Los Angeles Zoo, was equally distraught. “I find it incredible that the National Audubon Society would open itself to criticism. At any time they could be responsible for the death of more birds.”

However, William Butler, the society’s vice president for government relations and counsel, hailed the court’s action.

“We won what we wanted,” he said in an interview from Washington. “What it basically means is that . . . we are not putting all the condor eggs in one basket.”

The society had argued that removing the condors from the wild would imperil their habitat and threaten the chances of re-establishing a wild population. It asked the court not to permit further captures until the Fish and Wildlife Service filed an environmental impact statement assessing the effects of such a capture on the condor population and until the agency was committed to purchase the 13,000-acre Hudson Ranch, located in Kern County near the Ventura County border.

Congress has twice appropriated money to buy the ranch because it is seen as a vital, pollution-free link between other areas in the condor range, but Interior Secretary Donald Hodel has delayed spending it because of the possibility there may be no birds left to inhabit it.

Audubon has warned that the ranch will be sold to developers if it is not purchased soon for the condor preserve.

Parker had issued a temporary restraining order Jan. 9 prohibiting the capture of the remaining birds after a motion was filed by the society, which until recently was the only major environmental group still backing the controversial condor recovery program.

In Monday’s action, the judge issued a temporary injunction that further prohibited the capture of the remaining birds. The judge said he will issue a permanent prohibition in the form of a summary judgment at an unspecified date.